Publication:
Reproducibility of the Johns Hopkins Hospital template for urologic cytology samples

dc.contributor.authorMatthew T. Olsonen_US
dc.contributor.authorAnna Novaken_US
dc.contributor.authorThiraphon Boonyaarunnateen_US
dc.contributor.authorJessi Trotteren_US
dc.contributor.authorSharon Sachsen_US
dc.contributor.authorDeidra Kellyen_US
dc.contributor.authorSterling Forden_US
dc.contributor.authorToby C. Cornishen_US
dc.contributor.authorAdam Tollen_US
dc.contributor.authorArmanda D. Tatsasen_US
dc.contributor.authorZahra Malekien_US
dc.contributor.authorYener S. Erozanen_US
dc.contributor.authorDorothy L. Rosenthalen_US
dc.contributor.otherThe Johns Hopkins School of Medicineen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-09T02:54:56Z
dc.date.available2018-11-09T02:54:56Z
dc.date.issued2014-01-01en_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Cytologic screening for urothelial carcinoma is fraught with low sensitivity, a high indeterminate rate, and until recently, poor standardization of terminology. The Johns Hopkins Hospital John K. Frost Cytopathology Laboratory has recently developed and published a template for reporting urine cytopathology; herein, we evaluate its interobserver reproducibility. Materials and methods: Two sets of 100 cases each were deidentified; each set was reviewed by 5 of 10 observers in a randomized order at the direction of computerized data collection software that tracked observation time as well as observer classification of the atypia-no atypia, atypia (AUC-US), or atypia suggestive of high-grade urothelial carcinoma (AUC-H). Specific morphologic features were also recorded. Cases were grouped into low-, intermediate-, and high-agreement based on the number of observers who made the assessment. The findings were correlated against clinical outcomes. Results: High agreement among observers about the presence or absence of high-grade features was possible in approximately two-thirds of indeterminate urine cases. Time and order did not factor significantly into observer propensity for identifying atypical features or favoring either AUC-US or AUC-H, and cases with high agreement about the presence of high-grade features were more likely to have a malignant follow-up. Furthermore, AUC-H diagnoses based on 2 or more high-grade features had a significantly higher malignancy risk than AUC-US diagnoses did. Conclusions: AUC-H is a valid diagnostic category with specific, reproducibly identified features that portend a higher risk of malignancy than the findings of AUC-US. © 2014 American Society of Cytopathology.en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of the American Society of Cytopathology. Vol.3, No.3 (2014), 156-164en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jasc.2014.02.003en_US
dc.identifier.issn22132945en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-84899790571en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/34660
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84899790571&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleReproducibility of the Johns Hopkins Hospital template for urologic cytology samplesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84899790571&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections